May
5, 2000

INVADE
AFRICA?  YOU FIRST!

It
isn't very often that we get to see the doctrine of global intervention expressed
in its pristine pure form. Oh, there are a few examples: Joshua Muravchik's
book, Exporting
Democracy, which hails the US military occupation of Germany and Japan
as models for American foreign policy in the post-cold war era, is one, and
the infamous essay by William
Kristol and Robert Kagan. "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy" [Foreign
Affairs, July/August 1996] calling for the US to establish a "benevolent
world hegemony" is another. But these exceptions merely prove the rule: they
stand out precisely because they are so unusual. Most Americans reflexively
react to the proposition that we ought to go charging off into the world with
a sword drawn, looking for dragons to slay, with suspicion, disdain, and even
horror. Their first question is: why? Why is this our fight? The
elites, however, are quite a different matter: a
recent study by the Pew Center bemoans the fact that, while the elites in
media, government, and the corporate boardroom are enthusiastic internationalists,
the lumpen masses are still mired in their "isolationism." In an appalling
display of smugness, the study divides those polled into two groups: the public,
and "the Influentials"  and notes that while the latter see US meddling
in the Balkans as a great idea, the stupid common folks sullenly dissent; the
elites think the top goal of US foreign policy ought to be combating "nationalism
and ethnic hatred," while the public puts this at the bottom of its list of
things to do. The Influentials just love foreign aid, but the Uninfluential
Majority hates it. Now, at first blush, this Influential/Nobody dichotomy
seems like an affectation, and certainly the way the Pew Center goes on about
it is insufferable. We are told, for example, that the brave new world order
Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright are building for us thrills the elites,
but somehow

"Public
responses suggest that it has not yet caught up to changed conditions over the
past few years. While the public at large continues to have a gloomy international
outlook, the very small percentage of Americans who are well informed about
foreign affairs and have a college degree (about 4% of all Americans) have a
positive view of world conditions  one that approaches that of Opinion
Leaders."

NO
PLACE FOR THE HOI POLLOI

If
you aren't an internationalist, then you're obviously an uneducated dolt with
dirt under your fingernails and a single-digit IQ. To be "well-informed" is
to agree with the Opinion Leaders who, by definition, know what's best for us
Nobodies. The pretensions of the Pew Center aside for the moment, this division
of the world into the Power Elite and the Powerless is unfortunately not just
an affectation but also reflects reality  especially when it comes to
foreign affairs, a realm long dominated by the pin-stripes crowd, the "best
and the brightest" architects of disaster. Foreign policy has traditionally
been the purview of a very elite group of "experts," ostensibly bipartisan but
representing a very narrow range of opinion, and this exclusivity carries over
into the punditocracy. Now that Pat Buchanan is writing campaign speeches instead
of newspaper columns, there are only two nationally-syndicated columnists that
I can think of who can be relied on to represent the foreign policy views of
the Powerless Majority: Charley Reese, of the Orlando Sentinel, and Robert
Novak.

THE
MAIN ENEMY IS AT HOME

This
elite/hoi polloi dichotomy also carries over into the conservative movement,
that hotbed of "isolationism" and know-nothingism, where the split between the
leadership and the rank-and-file on foreign affairs is even wider. While Dubya's
foreign policy advisors would rewrite "America the Beautiful" to say "America,
the Hegemon," and Heritage Foundation policy wonks write heavily-footnoted tomes
on the necessity of extending NATO to the Ukraine and beyond, the average outside-the-Beltway
conservative activist is focused on the enemy at home. It wasn't Slobodan Milosevic
who crashed through the door of the Gonzalez family home and seized a six-year-old
boy at gunpoint. It wasn't the Attorney General of Yugoslavia who incinerated
the martyrs of Waco. It wasn't the Russian federal police who visited death
on a small cabin in a place called Ruby Ridge.

THEIR
NATIONAL GREATNESS, AND OURS

But
the conservative elite, centered in the Upper West Side of Manhattan as well
as the Washington Beltway, while occasionally pandering to the radicalized hoi
polloi, disdain this vulgar anti-statism. A whole school of thought has
erupted, like a small pimple, in these haughty circles, in opposition to what
they regard as outright subversion and even treason. Embarrassed in front of
their liberal friends to be seen with such obviously lowbrow Neanderthals and
isolationists, they have come up with an alternative all their own  "national
greatness conservatism." Here, at last, is a way to ditch all that radical-sounding
rhetoric about cutting back government and tearing down the monuments of the
welfare state: instead, we'll be building some monuments of our own:
bridges, roads, airports, statues, and other public works that embody an ostensibly
conservative vision of a strong American state. The Weekly Standard,
that barometer of Manhattanite Reaction, was the first to take up the cry, but
the "national
greatness" bandwagon really picked up speed when John McCain took the reins,
and then all the neocons hitched a ride. A short ride, but a heady one, and
don't think that this is the last we are going to hear of either McCain or "national
greatness." Of course, what really got the neocons all excited about McCain
was his bellicosity: oh yeah, let's go after all those "rogue states," overthrow
the governments of Iraq, North Korea, and Yugoslavia, and confront Russia and
China while we're at it. This is the really dangerous aspect of the "national
greatness" concept: it's application to foreign policy.

CHARLES
KRAUTHAMMER IS 'MY FAVORITE MARTIAN'

If
the Kristol-Kagan article outlines the theory of "national greatness" applied
to foreign policy, then Jonah Goldberg's "A
Continent Bleeds," posted at National Review Online, illustrates
the utter absurdity of the concept in practice. The piece is portentously subtitled
"Taking America  and our responsibilities  seriously." Uh oh, this
sounds ominous, and it is: We are treated, in the opening paragraphs, to a litany
of Africa's afflictions: AIDS, hunger, corruption, and war. Goldberg, a columnist
usually given to cute one-liners but nothing really all that weighty,
clues us in at the beginning: "This ain't a funny column." But the best humor
is unintentional, and Goldberg's extended remarks on how we might aspire to
national greatness are good for more than a few guffaws. For young Jonah, who
is identified as the Editor of National Review Online, is not interested
in anything so prosaic as bridges. He just loves this national greatness stuff,
but the trouble is that "greatness conservatives are slow to realize that we
do not live in an age where we need another department of agriculture, some
more land-grant colleges, or a push to bust the trusts." He kind of likes Charles
Krauthammer's suggestion that we re-launch the space program and colonize Mars,
because

"Great
civilizations create great cathedrals, and the cathedrals of this generation
should be in outer space. Cathedrals inspire rich and poor people alike to believe
great things are possible. The Mars Polar Lander cost the average American the
price of half a cheeseburger. A human lander would cost the average American
more  perhaps even ten cheeseburgers! So be it. That is no great sacrifice."

SO
BE IT!

Isn't
it great being a "greatness conservative"? All you have to do is say
"so be it!" and mountains are moved, cathedrals rise, and slaves toil happily
to the greater glory of Pharoah. As for computing the cost of the Mars Polar
Lander in cheeseburgers  the usual measure of cost is dollars, which don't
have to be spent on cheeseburgers. But what if they are? Is government empowered
to trump any and all private desires with the overbearing "greatness" of our
noble elites? To concede this would indeed be a great sacrifice of American
liberties. This does not occur to Goldberg, however, who blithely plunges on,
opining that

"If
great sacrifice is the measure of true greatness, then the answer does not lie
on the surface of Mars. One need only look to the area on this planet where
it appears time is moving in the wrong direction. The average African is indisputably
worse off today than he was thirty or forty years ago. Of what other place can
you say such a thing?"

WELL,
ACTUALLY, I CAN . . .

Vietnam,
for one; North Korea, for another. The former Soviet Union, for another, where
the infant mortality rate is surpassing Third World levels. The Arabs who live
in the "demilitarized" zone of Lebanon, annexed and perpetually bombed by Israel,
don't seem too much better off, and neither do the Iraqis and the Serbians.
I guess getting bombed at regular intervals isn't too conducive to progress.
As for America, even aside from urban blight and the growing predominance of
a neobarbarian adversary culture, we are much worse off in the sense
that the citizens of the late Roman Empire were worse off than those of the
old Republic. But Goldberg, oblivious to such fine distinctions, is impatient
to get on with his Africa thesis, which is this:

"I
think it's time we revisited the notion of a new kind of Colonialism 
though we shouldn't call it that. I don't mean ripping off poor countries. I
don't mean setting tribes against one another and paying off corrupt "leaders"
to keep down unrest. I mean going in  guns blazing if necessary 
for truth and justice. I am quite serious about this. The United States should
mount a serious effort to bring civilization (yes, "Civilization") to those
parts of Africa that are in Hobbesian despair. We should enlist any nation,
institution, organization  especially multinational corporations and evangelical
churches as well as average African citizens  interested in permanently
helping Africa join the 21st century. This might mean that Harvard would have
to cut back on courses about transgender construction workers. And it might
mean that some churches would have to spend more time feeding starving people
than pronouncing on American presidential candidates."

BILLIONS
UPON BILLIONS

Oh,
and by the way, it isn't only Harvard that will be sacrificing a few cheeseburgers:
"We should spend billions upon billions doing it," Goldberg avers, and if a
few American soldiers will have to be fed into the meatgrinder  well then,
so be it! See, now wasn't that easy? But that's what "greatness" is all
about  sending other people off to die for your delusions. According to
Goldberg, we must

"put
American troops in harm's way" and "not be surprised that Americans will die
doing the right thing. We should not be squeamish, either, about the fact that
(mostly white) Americans will kill some black Africans in the process."

A
ZABAR'S IN UGANDA

Why
should Goldberg be squeamish? After all, he is not going to get shipped
to some African hellhole, it won't be his guns that are blazing into
the impenetrable darkness of that jungled continent. He won't be camped
out in the middle of the biggest concentration of poisonous insects and murderous
predators, both animal and human, on earth. He'll be sitting in his Upper West
Side apartment, thinking up new ways to celebrate his own greatness. We must
bring "civilization" to Africa  but what is that? A Zabar's in Uganda?
A cell phone for every Namibian? Must we hook up every hut to the Internet?
And they used to call the New Left "condescending saviors," but even the social
engineers of the old Soviet Union could not have even conceived of taking on
such a grandiose project as Goldberg proposes. Before we go on a civilizing
mission to Sierra Leone, perhaps we should send an expeditionary force to certain
sections of the Bronx as a kind of test case.

HAIL
BRITANNIA?

Goldberg
claims that his brand of colonialism is "new," but he has not even bothered
to give it any new packaging. Not only does he want to bring in the "multinational
corporations," he wants to get the churches in on the deal too  just like
in the old days of British imperialism, which Goldberg conjures as a great and
noble enterprise:

"The
British Empire decided unilaterally that the global practice of slavery was
a crime against God and man, and they set out to stop it. They didn't care about
the 'sovereignty' of other nations when it came to an evil institution. They
didn't care about the 'rule of international law,' they made law with the barrel
of a cannon."

Yes,
and look where they are now: shrunken to a shadow of their former imperial "greatness."
Shriveled by socialism and debauched by imperialism, they are the victims of
their own overweening arrogance. Is this the Goldbergian prescription for "national
greatness"  that we should end up utterly impoverished, exhausted by our
imperial adventures and dreaming of better days?

TARGET
AUDIENCE

In
reading this piece, it was possible to forget that one was reading an ostensibly
conservative magazine, and toward the end he directly addresses leftists, who,
it seems, have been his real target audience all along:

"Recently,
we've heard a lot from the Left about how great Cuba is because it has free
health care. American liberals are perfectly willing to countenance Cuba's state-sanctioned
murder and the abrogation of virtually all civil rights in exchange for free
mammograms and tonsillectomies. Ending poverty and hunger  barely 
ought to be worth a mighty price for these men and women who spout daily about
the right to burn flags and receive government payments for artfully arranged
fecal matter. One wonders what they would be willing to accept for African children
to grow up with arms and families intact. As for what conservatives would be
willing to accept, I have no idea. But I have a sense quite a few of them will
tell me."

THE
LIFE OF THE PARTY

It
is slightly odd that an editor of National Review has "no idea" what
conservatives will think of his Napoleonic altruism, but even odder that he
doesn't seem to care. I realize that NR has long since ceased to be the
literary epicenter of American conservatism  although I am old enough
to remember a time when it was  but it is still sad to see that under
the editorship of that P. J. O'Rourke-ish looking fellow it has degenerated
to the point of printing (or posting) pieces directed at the author's leftist
friends instead of the magazine's actual readers. Who cares what the
left has to say about health care in Cuba  do really we have to send American
boys (and girls) to the oozing swamps of deepest darkest Africa so that Jonah
Goldberg can lord it over the trendy-lefty partygoers at some Manhattan loft?

UPWARD
MOBILITY

I
don't mean to take Goldberg's column too seriously  after all, most of
his columns are meant, I think, to be humorous  but perhaps it does tell
us something about the Influentials, the Opinion Leaders, and the way they get
appointed these days. The first time I ever saw Jonah Goldberg he was sitting
next to Lucianne Goldberg, his mother, describing  in some detail 
just how that stain happened to get on Monica's infamous dress. The Lewinsky
scandal spawned a whole new wave of instant "experts," whose job it was to provide
grist for the endless media mill; just as the O.J. Simpson trial made several
media careers (CNN's Greta van Sustern), so the Lewinsky/impeachment affair
produced a new generation of scandalmongers, of whom Lucianne Goldberg was certainly
one of the most colorful  and enterprising. With the Lewinsky tapes in
her hot little hands, Lucianne was momentarily at the center of l'affaire Lewinsky,
and she managed to spin a radio show off of her notoriety, a website, and, it
seems, instant appointment of her son as a resident foreign policy guru at the
flagship magazine of the American Right. From Lewinsky-ology to geopolitics
 in the conservative movement of today, the transition is quick and almost
effortless.

FROM
HERE TO ABSURDITY

I
don't mean to be unkind  really I don't  but Goldberg's article
is a virtual parody, albeit unintended, of the globalist idea. Drawing out an
absurd premise  that the US must right every wrong, heal every wound,
bear every burden and pay any price  to its logical conclusion, he demonstrates
its self-evident impossibility. Evident, that is, to any ordinary conservative,
but not to the Opinion Leaders and other high-falutin' folks, in government
and the media, who only have to declare: So be it!  and suddenly
governments are building bridges, raising cathedrals, colonizing Mars, and,
most important of all, starting wars. But before we get started, the rest of
us have a few questions. . . .

IN
THE VANGUARD

There
are not nearly enough American troops to patrol the African continent; will
Goldberg have us bring back the draft, and thus force every young American to
aspire to his kind of "greatness"? But the big question is this  will
Goldberg himself volunteer for this noble mission to bring civilization
to Africa? Asking whether the Cuba-loving Left would be willing to accept the
challenge of lifting Africa up out of oppression and poverty, he concluded his
article by noting that "quite a few" conservatives will tell him what they think
of his proposal. Well then, here goes: I'm for it Jonah, but only on the condition
that we send you over there first, as a kind of scouting party, with
the rest of the invading army to follow not too long after you give the
signal. And don't worry, we'll give you plenty of mosquito nets  and your
choice of a farm in Zimbabwe or UN headquarters in Sierra Leone.

Please
Support Antiwar.com

A contribution
of $25 or more gets you a copy of Justin Raimondo's Into the Bosnian Quagmire:
The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans, a 60-page booklet packed
with the kind of intellectual ammunition you need to fight the lies being put
out by this administration and its allies in Congress. And now, for a limited
time, donors of $40 or more receive a copy of Ronald Radosh's classic study
of the Old Right conservatives, Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative
Critics of American Globalism. Send contributions to